About your Search

20130101
20130131
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
to the important issues regarding pakistan, with respect to the important issues regarding the region. we called the event "back to the future." some people have spoken before about this, and what we mean by that. i think we will let that emerged as the discussion goes on. we know we have a lot of fundamental issues to talk about. certainly, military presence has been an issue talked about in the newspapers all lot. governance is an important issue. technical issues, such as what type of agreements might be signed between the u.s. and afghanistan, are important. the role of pakistan. many others. with that, let me turn to our three speakers, each of whom will speak for six to 10 minutes, roughly speaking. then we'll open it up to dialogue, with the audience. i will give you the floor. >> my responsibilities for afghanistan go back to 2001. it is fair to say i was present at the creation of at least the current regime in kabul. i started by looking back and trying to spot the things we did wrong. it strikes me that there were three fundamental errors, two of which are perceived at the time and tr
pakistan and india were at a nadir. coins and with 9/11 and the subsequent bond process, a pakistani base -- terrorist group had conducted a large- scale terrorist attack on the indian parliament. the countries were close to war. very close to war. the idea that they would collaborate in some joint venture in afghanistan was more difficult to conceive then that might be now. relations have to some degree improved. i do not think that india and pakistan between them would be able to substitute for the kind of assistance -- [indiscernible] for some time to come. to the extent the country's -- countries could agree on some form of joint collaboration, i would not oppose it. but neither would i look to it to shoulder much of the load in the short to medium term. >> from rote. -- front row. >> i write the mitchell reports and also councilmember. fassel -- i wanted to ask the ambassador about his observations about cost and risk. and to do that in the context of american domestic political setting, just to say that 2014 is not just another year. it is midterms. i wonder if there is a way, if yo
against the united states in a country like pakistan and each at, which are large recipients of the public majority that is military, but there is a very powerful sentiment that this evil don't like us. they take our money and burn our flag. luscious cut them off. obviously there's been resolutions and so forth. talk about how you respond to you think the country how to respond to that very powerful sentiment. >> well, the common thread here is the presence of al qaeda and its affiliates in the threat that poses to the world from the standpoint of stability and peaceful transition of government. we are reminded that almost every day and it's a crested that sweeps across the middle of the world, starting in indignation at coming across northern africa and now moving down to the sub-saharan parts of africa. this is a threat that has enormous implications. we've seen ignoring the threat as we did in afghanistan pre-9/11 leads to dire consequences potentially for americans. it is true the american public is more weary, but nevertheless we are reminded every day that works and journalists -- >>
governments recommit to dialogue as the right way forward on this. that's what we support. >> the pakistan form minister still in new york, if anyone had a talk with her? >> i think i mentioned yesterday that her senior meeting with u.s. government officials was with ambassador rice at the u.n. yesterday so i'll refer you to u.s.-u.n. for a readout on that. >> and pakistan? the situation in pakistan, the news media is talking about a situation during the general's takeover and many people say in pakistan it may be linked to 1971. what do you think -- what is the future of the political system in pakistan and now for the last five years or more, they have been going on. >> we had quite a bit to say about this situation yesterday, fundamentally this is an issue for pakistanis to resolve. they've got to resolve their internal political issues in a just and transparent way just to say again pakistan has an established electoral process as outlined in the constitution. that needs to be respected. we support civilian democracy in pakistan. >> just one quick one -- >> you really got a lot today.
president. -- presidents. he led the afghanistan-pakistan review. bruce has written two books in his time here. a third is about to come out. the first two were about al qaeda. the search for al qaeda and the deadly embrace. the new book coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon." it is about the us -- pakistan -- u.s.-pakistan relationship. general stanley mcchrystal spent 34 years in the new oteri. he was -- in the military. he was the director of the joint staff. in military circles, this five- year. of -- five-year period of joint special operations command is what makes them memorable and historic. the reality is that he has done more to carry the fight to al qaeda since 2001 than any other person in this department, possibly in the country. after that, bob gates got up, and the secretary of defense called him one of the finest men at arms this country as ever produced, then continued over the past decade, no single american has inflicted more fear and more loss of life on our country most vicious and violent enemies than dan mcchrystal -- stan mcchrystal. that makes him sound pr
three questions. one is afghanistan, the sec is pakistan. with regard to afghanistan, i wanted to ask you about the first question relates to president karzai and the leches ahead of them. when he was here just a couple of weeks ago, i had the chance to visit with him in leader mcconnel's office and a number of senators as well. and to ask him directly about the elections and ask him about my second question. but i wanted to get your sense of where you see those lexes going. what efforts you can undertake to make sure that they are free and fair because they've been, i think, central to the next chapter in this transition. i just wanted to comment on that. the second question as it relates to afghanistan is one that senator boxer raised and her work on this has been exemplary, on women and girls and in particular, i have a -- an amendment that we got through the national defense authorization act which would require both state and defense to file a report on the efforts to promote the security of afghan women and girls just by way of itemization monitoring and responding to changes in
served as a senior advisor as recently as 2011 for afghanistan and pakistan to the late richard holbrook, a former munk debater. ladies and gentlemen, dean vali nasser. [applause] now, when you think of provocative conversation on a big foreign policy challenges of the day, you have to think about our next debater. his flagship global affairs program on cnn is seen in over 200 countries worldwide. but he is anything but a talking head on cable tv. he writes a highly respected column for the post and is the editor at large of "time" magazine. his numerous best selling books include "the post-american world" and "the future of freedom." please welcome back broadcaster and journalist, fareed zakaria. [applause] now we are just momenting from getting our debate under way but before we hear from opening statements, one again i'm going to need this audience's assistance as the night goes on to make sure our debaters stay on time in terms of their opening and closing remarks and that we move forward as a debate together. so you will see this countdown clock, this handy clock appear. when it rea
understand in when you went to islamabad, pakistan, in 2006, you said at that time a military strike against iran, a military option is not a viable, feasible or responsible option. now it seems what you're saying about the military option now seems inconsistent and why would you make that statement in pakistan that it's not a viable, feasible or responsible option in light of your statement today that you do, i have, and i stockly agree that a military option should be on the table. >> that statement was made in respect to all options with iran. and pakistan was where i was at the time. and the larger context of that was nuclear powers which certainly pakistan is part of that. and not unlike what secretary gates said on a strike on iran. my point was that this would not be a preferable option land the would be consequences to this option. things would happen as a result of it. if we could find a better option or way to deal with iran to assure they do not get nuclear weapons, then we are far better off. that was the context of that statement. >> i know my time is up and we will have an oppo
down drone attacks on al qaeda affiliates in pakistan, yemen, will not use other counterterrorism resources to identify, locate and detain the terrorists involved in the death of our ambassador and others in libya. this inconsistent policy may stem from the president's hasty campaign promise to shut down guantanamo bay, gitmo, prematurely transfer detention facilities in iraq and afghanistan. in doing so the president effectively ended america's ability to detain and interrogate terrorists, depriving the f.b.i., the c.i.a. and other agencies of critical opportunities to obtain information on al qaeda networks. today, as the case of benghazi suspect harzi, has demonstrated, the united states is completely reliant on the cooperation of host countries to detain on our behalf and selectively allow access to suspects. as in the case of harzi, as demonstrated, this approach is fraught with diplomatic roadblocks, costing critical time and getting information from suspects to track terrorist networks. perhaps that is why president obama so often opts to use lethal drone strikes to kill te
and japan? i'm not sure about the muslim brotherhood aid but on pakistan that's been a big issue, both republicans and depps have said, we need to pare back that aid to pakistan. senator rand paul has been pushing that. others like senator john mccain say, we can't just cut them off. foreign aid is very important if we want to get them to do what we want them to do and foster democracy. host: before we let you go here, we're going to take another phone cull, but tell us the fresh minnesota class, some names and faces people should be looking out for, people who might make a name for themselves in the 113th? guest: one is senator tim kaine, he beat george allen in the election, a former governor, he's close to president obama. he was almost picked as vice president. obama and kain talked about him running in the senate, then he ended up winning. that's a democrat to watch. you have to watch the democrats in the senate. elizabeth warren won a huge battle with senator scott broun. -- scott brown. how is she going to operate? the financial industry is a little nervous about elizabeth warre
availability on thursday afternoon. >> what is happening at the india and pakistan border? this time it is kind of a serious matter took place and fightings are happening at the border. according to -- [indiscernible] with president karzai coming here and things going on in washington and what is happening in afghanistan. what if india -- it might be hurting inya. >> well, the issue of tensions between india and pakistan is something that the secretary knows very well. we all hope that we can maintain peace and stability in the region. the secretary has affirmed that on visits throughout that region including to india. on tissue of terrorism, let me say that we stand with everyone in the world to include those in india and pakistan who take a hard line against terrorists who want to kill civilians whether they are pakistani, indian or american civilians. we believe there needs to be a united front against terrorist groups operating in that part of the world and others. >> as transition to what is the last time that the secretary had been asked by yained of any kind of help -- are they going to
by pakistani authorities in pakistan. others were arrested in thailand by the police. you had nashiri who was arrested in to buy another arrested in somalia. the notion that we have to have the special forum that has battlefield conditions is a great smokescreen for this second-rate process that says more about us than about the people we are trying to bring before us. another important piece is the issue of torture. the senate select committee on intelligence completed their report recently and you probably saw john mccain and dianne feinstein said the report concludes torture did not work. they say it was a stain on our reputation. it is important that that report is declassified to the public in light of "zero dark 30." it is about the killing of osama bin laden bin laden. i think the movie will do for torture with jaws did for sharks. it will become the public perception of reality and it is a lie. i think that moving makes it doubly important for the senate select committee to report -- to get the report declassified so the public can have a debate on the truth and not this hollywood
that is a good idea. the fact is, afghanistan and pakistan, that nexus, the tribal border region there that is poorly defined and poured a controlled is perhaps the most dangerous place in the world to the united states. it is where al qaeda and began. it is where the remnants of al qaeda still exists. there was a drone strike reported within the last 24 hours against terrorists in that region. that is an area that will remain a threat for the foreseeable future. we can conduct drones strikes, gather intelligence, continue to keep an eye on that area, stabilize it and influence the direction it goes, because that is the part of the world that puts the united states most at risk. host: a sovereignty issue for pakistan, but also, karzai is expected to bring up sovereignty issues for afghanistan. what will he be saying? guest: president karzai correctly feels that he does not have control of what is going on inside his country. special operations, conducting raids inside afghanistan late at night without necessarily afghan permission, or not necessarily the afghans always doing is q
, a backlash against the united states and countries like pakistan and egypt. i think the majority of that is military. but there is a very powerful sentiment in those countries that those people do not like us. they take our money and then they burn our flag. let's just cut them off. obviously, there have been resolutions introduced and so forth. talk a little bit about how you respond or you think the country ought to respond to that very powerful sentiments. >> i think the common thread is the al qaeda and its affiliates and the threats that poses to the world from the standpoint of stability and peaceful transition of government. and we are reminded of that almost every day. it sweeps across the middle of the world, starting in indonesia and going through northern africa and now moving down through the sub sahara parts of africa. this is a threat that has enormous implications. we have seen at ignoring that threat as we did in afghanistan, pre-9/11, leads to some dire consequences potentially for americans. it is true that the american public is worried, but we are reminded eve
and pakistan, or al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. but this is something -- this is a multi-headed beast, if you will, and we are vigorous in our efforts to combat organizations like this and work with our allies to do so around the region and the world. >> on the question of gun legislation, it was made clear to us in the briefing yesterday that the white house will not send a comprehensive bill that contains all of gun control measures to capitol hill. it will defer to, in the case of the assault weapons ban and magazine size, senator feinstein, senator schumer on one aspect of it; senator gillibrand to another. and there are some house democrats who would prefer just the opposite approach -- a comprehensive bill, one vote, one package to concentrate the mind of the american public and to achieve a better legislative result. can you explain to us the strategic insight the white house has as to why it's better that the white house not to write it and send it up in one comprehensive bill? >> well, i'd answer it two ways. one, some of the legislation that we are talking about here, specif
in part because over the last years, we have become accustomed in operating in pakistan, in iraq and afghanistan and yemen and elsewhere. and we do, as by necessity, rely on security officials to implement the protocols and procedures necessary to keep our people safe. and as i said in my opening statements, i have a lot of confidence in them, because most of the time they get it right. but i was also engaged -- and think this is what deputy secretary burns was referring to, in the issues related to the deteriorating threaten virmente, particularly in libya -- there were other places across the region we were also watching -- to try to see what we could do to support the libyan government to improve the overall stability of their country to deal with the many militias. we have many programs and actions that we were working on. i had a number of conversations with leading libyan officials. i went to libya in october of 2011. in fact shortly before the attack on benghazi, we approved libya for substantial funding from a joint state-d.o.d. account, c.t. capabilities and w.m.d. effor
an enormous amount of information about al qaeda in pakistan. the administration continues to use the intelligence every day in drone stripes. it is not just actable intelligence but how they operate. since the program was shut down we have seen the emergence of all paid in the arabian peninsula. -- of al qaeda in iridium pinto. we have had the emergence of al- shabab merging with out a this central. -- with al qaeda central. and al qaeda in africa. are we struggling in a way? the information we have on pakistan and the lack of information, is it harder to get the intelligence we need because we do not have this tool? >> one of the most important threads of information that i saw when i got there and still mom could 2006, late in the game, was detainee information. at are the suggested to you that i'm willing to adjust the detail program -- i already suggested to you that i am willing to adjust the detainee program. we have other petitions and sources and knowledge. we have a better sense of the imminence of attack, what state of danger we are in as a nation. i told you we entered
are going to have a conservative outcome. so it's a test of this new pakistan if you will, of leadership -- pact, if you will, of leadership. we'll see if all those things come to pass and i hope they do. but i would submit to you, it's more of a test of what the leadership is going to do than it is of the conservative element. >> i would say it's a test for conservatives across america to challenge leadership and this congress to truly embrace an idea of a balanced budget and stand behind that and also shine the light on the senate, the fact that they aren't doing their job. it's a test for all of us, not just us, conservatives here, and conservatives within our conference, it's a test for leadership and i think it's a test for conservatives across america to really i guess rally behind something and support something that seems to have reform efforts to it and that is a pathway to a 10-year balanced budget. >> i think there has been too much waiting on the part of republicans, waiting for republicans to control the senate, waiting for republicans to control the white house. and there h
say about the drug is being dropped on the brothers and sisters in pakistan and somalia and yemen -- the drones being dropped? my voice hollers out, and do not take it with your hand on his bible. what would you say about the poverty in america now beginning with the children and the elderly and our working folks in all colors? not just here, around the world. do not hide and conceal his challenge. as much as i'm glad that barack obama won -- i think that brother mitt romney would have been a catastrophe -- brother newt told the truth about vampire capitalism, but that is the system as a whole. but when barack obama attempts to use that rich tradition of so many struggling to produce that voice that pushed martin in the direction that it did, i get upset. people say we are hating obama. no, we are living the tradition that produced martin luther king jr., and we will not allow it to be sanitized, deodorize, sterilized. we want the subversive power to be heard. that is what we think when he said he is going to put his hand on that bible. [applause] and i'm praying for him. i'm pray
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)